Pages

Friday, 31 January 2014

Poverty and social networks - key concepts

Social networks across the literature there is no
single definition of social networks, they can vary from knowing a neighbour to
say “hello” to, to having strong ties to kin and friends that individuals can
rely on.

Social Capital the concept of social capital is used
widely in sociology and political science. It focuses attention on social
networks that offer benefits for members. There are two key conceptions;
firstly derived from Robert Putnam’s work. This focuses on the extent of
network membership and the amount of trust within networks. Societies with high
levels of this sort of social capital are seen to be functioning more
effectively than those without. The second is derived from the work of Pierre
Bourdieu and critically aligns social capital with the unequal distribution of economic
capital in society. It focuses on networks as means to gain influence and
access to resources in society to accumulate further resources.

Poverty the report is based upon the JRF’s
definition of poverty used to frame the research programme:

“when a
person’s resources (mainly their material resources) are not sufficient to meet
minimum needs (including social participation).”

In using this
in data analysis we have chosen the consensual measure used in successive
Poverty and Social Exclusion surveys in the UK. In secondary data collected for
this review various measures of poverty and low income have been used, with
varying strengths and weaknesses, including: UK income measure of two-thirds median equivalised household income, or equivalent; income-based poverty measures of
other countries (US, Netherlands, Norway); the Market Research Association’s
Social Grades; the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification; and
commonly tenure, or employment status as a proxy for poverty or concentrated
deprivation.

Weak ties/strong ties the sociology of Mark Granovetter
focused attention on the strength of relationships within social networks. His
early work identified large numbers of weak ties among professional employees
that enabled them to access information about work opportunities and
advancement. This has been contrasted with the limited networks of strong ties
that people in less skilled labour markets rely on to change between similar
level jobs.

Similarly a
distinction has been made between the “bonding” social capital within less
affluent communities that helps people get by, for example, being able to call
on people for childcare, and the “bridging” capital of more affluent
communities that helps people get on by, for example, being able to access work
opportunities or advice.

Reciprocity many social networks are based on
reciprocity – the return of favours or resources granted. Reciprocity can be
individualised or generalised. Individualised reciprocity is the giving of
resources to an individual with an explicit agreement that there will be a
reciprocal exchange. Generalised reciprocity is the provision of resources to
individuals within a group with the knowledge that someone in that group will
return resources in exchange at some point in the future. Networks of
generalised reciprocity are thus high-trust networks.

Neighbourhood effects is the theory that there is an effect
on an individual’s outcomes from living in a neighbourhood with a concentration
of people with a certain characteristic, above and beyond the individual’s own
characteristics. To put it simply in this case, it is the theory that
experiencing poverty in a deprived neighbourhood is worse as the neighbourhood
itself reduces the chances of leaving poverty.

Mixed community there is no single definition of a
mixed community, but across the literature reviewed mixed communities were
either mixed in terms of tenure, particularly in the UK where this can be a
proxy for household income; mixed in terms of the incomes of households; mixed
in terms of ethnic diversity, particularly in Netherlands and US context. UK
evidence on mixed communities is mixed between evidence from neighbourhoods
built as mixed through regeneration programmes and similar, and communities
that have become mixed through tenure diversity as a result of the Right-to-Buy
policies.

Digital divide is a contested term, but is largely
understood to be the divide between people who have ready access to information
communications technologies and those who do not. Two digital divides are more
commonly identified: a socio-economic divide where less well-off people cannot
afford the up-front of on-going cost of internet access; and a cohort divide
where older people are not comfortable using newer technologies.

Web 2.0 and social
networking web
2.0 generally refers to websites and other resources that allow people to
create their own content on the web include blogs, video-sharing sites, audio-sharing
sites, noticeboards and micro-blogging. Social networking, through sites such
as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter is a subset of web 2.0 technologies that
specifically allow people to share information with social networks.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

I'm a Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling.
I blog about urban policy, cycling and other ephemera in a semi-professional manner. All posts represent personal opinions.